Summary of this article
The Bombay High Court dismissed a 46-year-old son's appeal and imposed a cost on him for harassing his elderly mother through years of litigation.
The court upheld the cancellation of property relinquishment deeds executed by the mother in her son's favour.
It also directed the son to pay Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance to his mother.
The Bombay High Court has come down heavily on a 46-year-old man for harassing his elderly parents with persistent litigation for years. Observing the son’s actions to harass his mother in her twilight years, the court dismissed his appeal and imposed a Rs 50,000 exemplary cost on him to discourage similar challenges by him.
The legal battle was about a property in Sangli, left behind by the son’s father, who passed away in 2007. While the son’s two sisters had relinquished their rights on the property in 2013, the mother signed the relinquishment deeds in 2015 and 2018. Effectively, this meant the property (land) was transferred in her son's name.
Later, their (mother and son) relationship soured when the son transferred a portion of that land to his wife in 2020, following a maintenance order from a family court.
The court noted that the son forced his mother to engage in litigation by filing multiple appeals, reported the Hindustan Times. This led the elderly to spend money on legal formalities, resulting in depletion of her meagre resources and also causing her mental agony.
The mother eventually approached the civil judge in the welfare tribunal, seeking relief under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act (MWPSCA), 2007. She sought cancellation of the relinquishment deeds, alleging that it was a fraud. The tribunal passed an order in her favour. It ordered her son to pay his mother a monthly maintenance of Rs 10,000, and made the relinquishment deeds void.
The son then challenged the order to the appellate tribunal, which rejected his appeal in 2025. He then approached the Bombay High Court, arguing that the deeds were voluntary and did not have a specific maintenance condition.
However, Justice Sachin Deshmukh, presiding over the single-judge bench, rejected the son’s arguments. The court noted that the mother was clearly dependent on him for her emotional and physical well-being.
It clarified that Section 23 of the MWPSC Act gives power to the tribunal to declare a property transfer void if the transferee fails to fulfil essential obligations towards the elderly parents. The court held that allowing the son to keep the property in exchange for paying monthly maintenance to her mother would mean taking away the statutory protection of the parent’s property rights.
The court reminded the son that property rights do not supersede the fundamental rights to survival and dignity, rejected his appeal, and also imposed a Rs 10,000 cost on him for dragging his 67-year-old mother into the persistent legal battles.
